Originally Posted by mazur49
I really struggle to get why every journalist writing about Witcher III emphasizes the theme of 'end' to Geralt's story. Author of Geralt's world pan Sapkowski still quite alive and in good health. Only recently he published a new book about adventures of greyhaired witcher Season of Storms. Yeah, it's prequel, still my point stands. It's even more absurd since strictly speaking story of Gwynbleidd already 'ended' according to canon by pitchfork of unknown peasant during pogrom in Rivia.
The story told in games is great piece of fan art … and nothing more. Is it so difficult to not forget whom we owe the greatest tribute and respect author's opinion about his creation?

As both are fiction, who is to say what is the "real" Geralt? Much like books made into movies, fan fiction, franchises that change hands, etc, the stories have so diverged from the starting point that they are no longer related.

The majority of the gaming community that follows Witcher 3 doesn't care about the books, the originality, the prequals etc. When the game ends it, that will be the gaming communities "end" of Geralt.

I'm not saying either is right or wrong, its just a perspective issue. Much like listening to people argue over the "original" comic book heros VS new age, or remakes/reboots of something. If you only are exposed to one facet, then that is your "original".